Eucharistic Miracles - Blood Type

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ne_OrangeKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Ne_OrangeKnight

Guest
I was very interested to learn that the flesh and blood from the miracle of Lanciano had the same blood type as blood taken from the Shroud of Turin: AB.

So it got me pondering, have any other eucharistic miracles had the blood tested and typed? I know not all of them involve blood, but many do, and I’m wondering if it’s, as one would assume, consistently the same type.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Huh… I’d heard from my high school chaplain that it was O-.

It’s interesting that the Lord would have such a very rare blood type.

I wonder, has anyone ever considered testing the blood type of the blood in the Eucharist? I mean, maybe it wouldn’t come up with anything since, IIRC, the species are empirically the same before and after transubstantiation… but maybe there’d be a really awesome surprise, too. Would that test be allowed, even? I don’t know… I’m really curious, but sometimes I think that gets in the way of showing proper devotion.
 
Edward62 said:
Huh… I’d heard from my high school chaplain that it was O-.

It’s interesting that the Lord would have such a very rare blood type.

I wonder, has anyone ever considered testing the blood type of the blood in the Eucharist? I mean, maybe it wouldn’t come up with anything since, IIRC, the species are empirically the same before and after transubstantiation… but maybe there’d be a really awesome surprise, too. Would that test be allowed, even? I don’t know… I’m really curious, but sometimes I think that gets in the way of showing proper devotion.
Click to expand...
The Eucharist retains the physical qualities of bread and wine, even after consecration. I have read on this forum that DNA and blood type testing has been done, with the results showing that it is bread and wine.

The substance changes, the accidents remain.
 
These kinds of threads always disturb me. I am not denying that Eucharistic miracles occur, but they are not the best examples to use to prove the Real Presence. For starters, we can’t prove the Real Presence. It’s a mystery of faith. Secondly, as the above poster correctly stated, the substance of bread and wine are changed (transubstantiation) while the accidents remain.

What we receive is the WHOLE RISEN CHRIST, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, not a fragment of bone or a sliver of bloody flesh. This is why the Church has always been skeptical of stories of bleeding hosts and such. This is not the Church’s proper understanding of the Real Presence.

I believe a miracle occurred at Lanciano initially, to dispel the doubts of the priest, but I question whether that particle continues to be the Real Presence of Christ. I thought that as soon as the accidents were gone, so was the substance.
  • Westy
 
Ohwesty said:
I believe a miracle occurred at Lanciano initially, to dispel the doubts of the priest, but I question whether that particle continues to be the Real Presence of Christ. I thought that as soon as the accidents were gone, so was the substance.
  • Westy
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the bread and wine, which were visibly (rather than the manner they usually transform) transformed into heart tissue and blood have remained incorrupt all this time.
 
Ohwesty,

I think your observation is valid.
Ohwesty said:
I believe a miracle occurred at Lanciano initially, to dispel the doubts of the priest, but I question whether that particle continues to be the Real Presence of Christ. I thought that as soon as the accidents were gone, so was the substance.
Click to expand...
Right. As soon as the accidents of bread and wine are gone, the Real Presence of Christ ceases. Thus we can say with relative certainty that since there are no accidents of bread and wine at Lanciano, there is no Real Presence by virtue of the sacrament.

The miraculous flesh would not merit worship because it is not Christ present. Perhaps it would merit veneration in the sense a relic merits veneration. At the very least it merits wonder and awe.

These eucharistic miracles are *didactic miracles. *Their intent is to teach. But we have to be careful and think the lesson through.

As far as the nature of the flesh and blood present in a eucharistic miracle, at the very least we might be able to say with some confidence that the flesh and blood are not hypostatically united with Christ. I think there is some question as to whether or not it ever was*. If *it was then it is akin to some of the blood shed during the Passion which remained (i.e. the Santa Scala, trace amounts on the instruments of the Passion, etc.) and which was not hypostatically reunited with Christ at the Resurrection. If it wasn’t Christ’s blood to begin with – well – then it is flesh and blood created specially for this limited purpose (which I think is a distinct possibility).

All of the above calls into question, to my mind, the relevance of the specifics regarding the blood type. Who knows, perhaps it is the same type of blood Christ has – but perhaps not. If all the eucharistic miracles are consistent in blood type that could go to show that the blood was Christ’s at one time. But if the blood types are not consistent it would neither invalidate the miracle itself nor the antecedent Real Presence, since, as I outlined above, the connection between the miraculous blood and Christ’s blood may be a bit tenuous in the first place.

VC
 
The Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ exist under the appearances of Bread and Wine.

If the appearances of the Wine changes into that of blood, such that you can type it, the Blood of Christ no longer exists here.

The same thing can be said if the appearance of Bread changes to that of flesh or cardiac tissue: it’s no longer the Body of Christ.
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Ohwesty,

I think your observation is valid.

Right. As soon as the accidents of bread and wine are gone, the Real Presence of Christ ceases. Thus we can say with relative certainty that since there are no accidents of bread and wine at Lanciano, there is no Real Presence by virtue of the sacrament.

The miraculous flesh would not merit worship because it is not Christ present. Perhaps it would merit veneration in the sense a relic merits veneration. At the very least it merits wonder and awe.

These eucharistic miracles are *didactic miracles. *Their intent is to teach. But we have to be careful and think the lesson through.

As far as the nature of the flesh and blood present in a eucharistic miracle, at the very least we might be able to say with some confidence that the flesh and blood are not hypostatically united with Christ. I think there is some question as to whether or not it ever was*. If *it was then it is akin to some of the blood shed during the Passion which remained (i.e. the Santa Scala, trace amounts on the instruments of the Passion, etc.) and which was not hypostatically reunited with Christ at the Resurrection. If it wasn’t Christ’s blood to begin with – well – then it is flesh and blood created specially for this limited purpose (which I think is a distinct possibility).

All of the above calls into question, to my mind, the relevance of the specifics regarding the blood type. Who knows, perhaps it is the same type of blood Christ has – but perhaps not. If all the eucharistic miracles are consistent in blood type that could go to show that the blood was Christ’s at one time. But if the blood types are not consistent it would neither invalidate the miracle itself nor the antecedent Real Presence, since, as I outlined above, the connection between the miraculous blood and Christ’s blood may be a bit tenuous in the first place.

VC
Click to expand...
Thank you for this very interesting and informative post ,esp.since for many who struggle with faith less than of a mustard seed, there would be a yearing for these ; still remember those earlier days of almost asking The Lord - why not a few rays of light and such from the host so that many could believe ; took a while to take in , how faith and love go hand in hand !

Can see how these instances may be that our Lord , in His mercy and wisdom and like in the case of saints whose relics are powerful , is bestowing a few such miracles !

Blessings !
 
bpbasilphx said:
The Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ exist under the appearances of Bread and Wine.

If the appearances of the Wine changes into that of blood, such that you can type it, the Blood of Christ no longer exists here.

The same thing can be said if the appearance of Bread changes to that of flesh or cardiac tissue: it’s no longer the Body of Christ.
Click to expand...
Does the Church say something about it? I always thought an eucharistic miracle is the flesh and blood of our Lord. It shows what normally we can’t see.
By the way, a test on a recent bleeding host showed type AB too.
 
Hi tessi,

I’m not aware of any formal pronouncements by the Church regarding this specific topic, although that certainly doesn’t mean there isn’t one!

The topic is, however, dealt with by theologians. St. Thomas Aquinas mentions, for instance, that when (as sometimes happens) people see a child instead of the host, it is a further miraculous change of appearance only, and it is not Christ’s actual appearance.

This issue is basically that when eucharistic miracle occurs and flesh and blood are seen – you actually are not seeing what is really there since Christ’s body and blood cannot be separate. The only option are a) it is merely a change of appearance or b) it is a change of substance but not into Christs’ flesh. It can’t be Christ’s actual flesh, because He has His flesh, and He whole and entire. Furthermore His exists in His flesh in its proper appearance, locally, only in Heaven – until He returns again.

That help? What are your thoughts?
VC
 
I want to know if you eat a piece of a bleeding host from an eucharistic miracle, are you receiving communion or just eating a piece of flesh that taste like blood?
 
Tessi,

It’s a good question. There are a few ways to approach it.

We know that the Real Presence of Christ by which He is substantially present by virtue of the sacrament exists only so long as the accidents of bread and wine exist. Thus after the accidents dissapear (say, through digestion) the Real Presence ceases.

St. Thomas points out, however, that not all accidents are created equal. Thomas singles out the “dimensive quantity” as the accident with the foundational role in regard to the other accidents. When you think about it you can see how this is true. The “dimensive quantity” of a thing (its extension in space – its dimensions: length, width, etc) control the rest of the accidents. Thus when you stretch out the length (an accident) of silly putty the color (an accident) goes along for the ride. It would be strange indeed if you could alter shape and not the other accidents as well, try to imagine what that would be like.

Other accidents don’t have the same priority. For instance you can get a coin dirty (changing the accident of color) but the other accidents remain the same.

Because the dimensive quantity is the foundational accident, Thomas seems to think that if in a eucharistic miracle some of the accidents really change but the dimensive quantity stays the same (i.e. the host shape remains*) then you could still have Christ’s sacramental Real Presence.

The above, is my best understanding of the issue. I believe it to be at least consistent with the mind of the Church, but I would welcome any corrections.

What do you think?

VC

*Thomas makes a distinction between a miraculous change of appearance due to the person’s perception (i.e. perhaps not everyone would see it) and a miraculous change of appearance due to an actual real change of being in the sacrament itself. We have been talking about the latter, actual change.

**This can be a bit complicated. Although the dimensive quantity is the foundational accident, other accidental changes can be so radical as to change the substance of a thing. For instance a dinosaur bone fossilizes by being changed into another mineral – although the dimensive quantity remains the same. Likewise in a consecrated host, it could turn completely moldy and yet still retain the shape – but you lose the Real Presence.

Along these same lines a consecrated host can be broken into two (or more pieces) thereby changing its dimensive quantity, but you still have the Real Presence so long as there is not such a radical change that you would say the substance of bread*, had it been there *(it’s not there, remember!), would have ceased. So if the pieces were pulverized, no Real Presence.

Putting all of that together: It would seem that if you had a consecrated host, broke it in two, and then both of those pieces miraculously changed appearance into flesh then the dimensive quantity that would matter in regard to the Real Presence would be the half-circles. If you tore those, you would lose the Real Presence. Why? I think what Thomas is saying that after the miraculous flesh appears the only accident that remains of the sacrament was the dimensive quantity. Change that, and you have nothing else to depend on (like you did when you broke the bread – at that point there were a whole bunch of accidents under which Christ was present.)
 
From therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html,
we see the following miracle of Lanciano, that scientific test showed blood type AB －:
In 1970, the Archbishop of Lanciano and
the Provincial Superior of the Conventual
Franciscans at Abruzzo, with Rome’s approval,
requested Dr. Edward Linoli, director of
the hospital in Arezzo and professor of anatomy,
histology, chemistry, and clinical microscopy, to
perform a thorough scientific examination on the
relics of the miracle which had occurred twelve
centuries earlier. On March 4, 1971, the professor
presented a detailed report of the various studies
carried out. Here are the basic results:
  1. The “miraculous Flesh" is authentic flesh
    consisting of muscular striated tissue of the
    myocardium.
  2. The “miraculous Blood" is truly blood. The
    chromatographic analysis indicated this with
    absolute and indisputable certainty.
  3. The immunological study shows with certigreat
    interest in the scientific world. Also, in 1973,
    the chief Advisory Board of the World Health
    Organization appointed a scientific commission to
    corroborate Linoli’s findings. Their work lasted 15
    months and included 500 tests. It was verified that
    the fragments taken from Lanciano could in no
    way be likened to embalmed tissue. As to the
    nature of the fragment of flesh, the commission
    declared it to be living tissue because it responded
    rapidly to all the clinical reactions distinctive of
    living beings. Their reply fully corroborated
    Professor Linoli’s conclusions. In the extract summarizing
    the scientific work of the Medical
    Commission of the WHO and the UN, published
    in Dec. 1976 in New York and Geneva, declared
    that science, aware of its limits, has come to a halt,
    face to face with the impossibility of giving
    an explanation.
    I tude that the flesh and the blood are human, and
    the immuno – hematological test allows us to
    affirm with complete objectivity and certitude
    that both belong to the same blood type AB – the
    same blood type as that of the man of the Shroud
    and the type most characteristic of Middle
    Eastern populations.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you bpbasilphx and Verbum Caro. I was afraid I’d be a lone voice crying in the wilderness. To repeat and clarify, I’m saying that when the *accidents of bread and wine *disappear, or are consumed and digested, or degrade into something other than bread and wine, there is no more Real Presence. The Sacred Species may turn into incorruptible flesh and blood, a miracle to be sure, but as soon as this happens the Real (sacramental) Presence has ceased.

I will pull a quote from the book “Pastoral Answers” written by Msgr. Francis Mannion on this topic. He says:
“The Church insists that the body and blood in the Eucharist do not correspond to actual meat and blood as we understand these in every day life. To hold that believers receive in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is to say that by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine, while remaining in the appearance of bread and wine, are changed into the very Being of the risen and glorified Christ. This is why the Church has always been skeptical of stories of bleeding hosts, of images of the crucified Christ appearing in the host, or of bread that turns into flesh after the consecration. This is not downplaying the Real Presence. On the contrary, in the Eucharist we receive nothing less than the whole Person of the Risen Christ.” [bold emphasis mine]
Click to expand...
One more thing. Jesus commanded us to “Take and EAT… Take and DRINK.” We cannot eat and drink consecrated Bread and Wine *whose appearances *are literal flesh and blood. To do so would make us cannibals, a false accusation the Roman pagans hung on the early Christians. It is this serious misunderstanding of the Real Presence that causes some non-Catholics to accuse us of cannibalism even today. But the Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation totally repudiates this notion.
  • Westy
 
tessi said:
I always thought an eucharistic miracle is the flesh and blood of our Lord. It shows what normally we can’t see.
Click to expand...
But the point is, if you could see what It really is you are receiving, you wouldn’t see heart tissue or a spot of blood. You would see the whole person of Christ in all His Easter-morning glory, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, as He sits at the right hand of the Father.
  • Westy
 
I read a really interesting book not too long ago. “Eucharistic Miracles” by Joan Carroll Cruz. WOW! What a book!! There are miracles involving the Host changing to flesh and others involving the Eucharist levitating and just all kinds of suff. It was so neat!
 
So nobody can assure me that Jesus is not present in an eucharistic miracle.
 
tessi said:
So nobody can assure me that Jesus is not present in an eucharistic miracle.
Click to expand...
I think one would have to take it on a case by case basis (absent official decisions made by the Church).

Assuming an objective change (everyone observes it): if the appearances of bread and wine change such that the foundational appearance of the species - its quantity or extension in space - alters then we can be morally certain that Christ is not present by virtue of the sacrament.

This is because the sacramental presence is based upon the signification of the bread and wine – that is what makes it a sacrament.

Christ may be present in another way, but not sacramentally (and one would dare say not substantially.) There is no eucharistic presence in those cases.

An example: if a consecrated host were to drip blood, the blood would not be the Eucharist, and would not contain the Real Presence of Christ.

VC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top